* linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree
@ 2019-09-02 6:39 Stephen Rothwell
2019-09-02 14:03 ` Joerg Roedel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-09-02 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joerg Roedel; +Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]
Hi all,
After merging the iommu tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/iommu/iommu.c: In function 'iommu_subsys_init':
drivers/iommu/iommu.c:123:38: error: implicit declaration of function 'sme_active'; did you mean 'cpu_active'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
123 | if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~
| cpu_active
Caused by commit
2cc13bb4f59f ("iommu: Disable passthrough mode when SME is active")
sme_active() seems to be only relevant to X86.
I have reverted that commit for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree 2019-09-02 6:39 linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-09-02 14:03 ` Joerg Roedel 2019-09-02 14:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Joerg Roedel @ 2019-09-02 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell, Thiago Jung Bauermann, Michael Ellerman, Tom Lendacky Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, tl;dr: And IOMMU commit introduces a new user for sme_active() in generic code, and commit 284e21fab2cf x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header breaks the build of drivers/iommu/ for all architectures not implementing sme_active(). On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:39:51PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > drivers/iommu/iommu.c: In function 'iommu_subsys_init': > drivers/iommu/iommu.c:123:38: error: implicit declaration of function 'sme_active'; did you mean 'cpu_active'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > 123 | if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) { > | ^~~~~~~~~~ > | cpu_active > > Caused by commit > > 2cc13bb4f59f ("iommu: Disable passthrough mode when SME is active") Actually it is caused by: commit 284e21fab2cfcf90dacce565e0b12f29e5df00c1 Author: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue Aug 6 01:49:17 2019 -0300 x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header which removes the sme_active prototype from the generic headers. The iommu commit is in next already for a couple of days and didn't cause problems before. > sme_active() seems to be only relevant to X86. It has an implementation on x86 and s390. > I have reverted that commit for today. Thanks, but I suggest reverting above commit instead. Regards, Joerg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree 2019-09-02 14:03 ` Joerg Roedel @ 2019-09-02 14:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas 2019-09-03 5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Lendacky, Thomas @ 2019-09-02 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joerg Roedel, Stephen Rothwell, Thiago Jung Bauermann, Michael Ellerman Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 9/2/19 9:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi, > > tl;dr: And IOMMU commit introduces a new user for sme_active() in > generic code, and commit > > 284e21fab2cf x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header > > breaks the build of drivers/iommu/ for all architectures not > implementing sme_active(). > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:39:51PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c: In function 'iommu_subsys_init': >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c:123:38: error: implicit declaration of function 'sme_active'; did you mean 'cpu_active'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> 123 | if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) { Maybe we should make this mem_encrypt_active(), since this will probably be needed if/when an IOMMU device is eventually added to a guest, and the referenced commit below doesn't remove that call. Thanks, Tom >> | ^~~~~~~~~~ >> | cpu_active >> >> Caused by commit >> >> 2cc13bb4f59f ("iommu: Disable passthrough mode when SME is active") > > > Actually it is caused by: > > commit 284e21fab2cfcf90dacce565e0b12f29e5df00c1 > Author: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com> > Date: Tue Aug 6 01:49:17 2019 -0300 > > x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header > > which removes the sme_active prototype from the generic headers. The > iommu commit is in next already for a couple of days and didn't cause > problems before. > >> sme_active() seems to be only relevant to X86. > > It has an implementation on x86 and s390. > >> I have reverted that commit for today. > > Thanks, but I suggest reverting above commit instead. > > > Regards, > > Joerg > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree 2019-09-02 14:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas @ 2019-09-03 5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell 2019-09-03 13:20 ` [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code Joerg Roedel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-09-03 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lendacky, Thomas Cc: Joerg Roedel, Thiago Jung Bauermann, Michael Ellerman, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1959 bytes --] Hi all, On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:26:40 +0000 "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com> wrote: > > On 9/2/19 9:03 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > tl;dr: And IOMMU commit introduces a new user for sme_active() in > > generic code, and commit > > > > 284e21fab2cf x86, s390/mm: Move sme_active() and sme_me_mask to x86-specific header > > > > breaks the build of drivers/iommu/ for all architectures not > > implementing sme_active(). > > > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:39:51PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c: In function 'iommu_subsys_init': > >> drivers/iommu/iommu.c:123:38: error: implicit declaration of function 'sme_active'; did you mean 'cpu_active'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > >> 123 | if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) { > > Maybe we should make this mem_encrypt_active(), since this will probably > be needed if/when an IOMMU device is eventually added to a guest, and the > referenced commit below doesn't remove that call. I have done that for today: From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:19:34 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] iommu: use mem_encrypt_active() instead of sme_active() Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index 66cfacaa483d..b870044ecd49 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void) else iommu_set_default_translated(false); - if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) { + if (iommu_default_passthrough() && mem_encrypt_active()) { pr_info("SME detected - Disabling default IOMMU Passthrough\n"); iommu_set_default_translated(false); } -- 2.23.0.rc1 -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code 2019-09-03 5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell @ 2019-09-03 13:20 ` Joerg Roedel 2019-09-03 16:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Joerg Roedel @ 2019-09-03 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Lendacky, Thomas, Thiago Jung Bauermann, Michael Ellerman, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:28:49PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:26:40 +0000 "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com> wrote: > > Maybe we should make this mem_encrypt_active(), since this will probably > > be needed if/when an IOMMU device is eventually added to a guest, and the > > referenced commit below doesn't remove that call. > > I have done that for today: Thanks Stephen and Tom. I queued the attached patch into the iommu tree to fix the problem. From 2896ba40d0becdb72b45f096cad70633abc014f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:15:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code Switch to the generic function mem_encrypt_active() because sme_active() is x86 specific and can't be called from generic code on other platforms than x86. Fixes: 2cc13bb4f59f ("iommu: Disable passthrough mode when SME is active") Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> --- drivers/iommu/iommu.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c index 66cfacaa483d..d658c7c6a2ab 100644 --- a/drivers/iommu/iommu.c +++ b/drivers/iommu/iommu.c @@ -120,8 +120,8 @@ static int __init iommu_subsys_init(void) else iommu_set_default_translated(false); - if (iommu_default_passthrough() && sme_active()) { - pr_info("SME detected - Disabling default IOMMU Passthrough\n"); + if (iommu_default_passthrough() && mem_encrypt_active()) { + pr_info("Memory encryption detected - Disabling default IOMMU Passthrough\n"); iommu_set_default_translated(false); } } -- 2.16.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code 2019-09-03 13:20 ` [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code Joerg Roedel @ 2019-09-03 16:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Thiago Jung Bauermann @ 2019-09-03 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joerg Roedel Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Lendacky, Thomas, Michael Ellerman, Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> writes: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:28:49PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:26:40 +0000 "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com> wrote: >> > Maybe we should make this mem_encrypt_active(), since this will probably >> > be needed if/when an IOMMU device is eventually added to a guest, and the >> > referenced commit below doesn't remove that call. >> >> I have done that for today: > > Thanks Stephen and Tom. I queued the attached patch into the iommu tree > to fix the problem. > > From 2896ba40d0becdb72b45f096cad70633abc014f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> > Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:15:44 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code > > Switch to the generic function mem_encrypt_active() because > sme_active() is x86 specific and can't be called from > generic code on other platforms than x86. > > Fixes: 2cc13bb4f59f ("iommu: Disable passthrough mode when SME is active") > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> Thank you! -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-03 16:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-09-02 6:39 linux-next: build failure after merge of the iommu tree Stephen Rothwell 2019-09-02 14:03 ` Joerg Roedel 2019-09-02 14:26 ` Lendacky, Thomas 2019-09-03 5:28 ` Stephen Rothwell 2019-09-03 13:20 ` [PATCH] iommu: Don't use sme_active() in generic code Joerg Roedel 2019-09-03 16:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).